Debate contribution: Health Service Transformation: Funding
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Health Service Transformation: Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4537313
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In reflecting on how my colleague Diane Dodds opened the debate, let us remember that we are talking about real lives and real people. We are talking about our families and friends. Diane tabled the motion on a matter that she feels passionately about in order to open up debate in the House, and I thank everyone for their contributions. The stabilisation package that our UK Government offered, although welcome, does not provide the space or the financial firepower to take forward the public services transformation agenda in a meaningful way. While we are right to highlight the cliff edge perpetuated by the Government's short-term stabilisation package and the benefits that extra funding could achieve, a lack of money cannot be an excuse for inaction. When devolution was restored in 1999, the Department of Health received one third of Northern Ireland's block grant. Today, it consumes more than half. We already spend more per person on health than any other UK region. That shows that it is not just about throwing money at the problem. I thank all the contributors to the debate. It was on something about which everyone feels strongly. Nuala McAllister, in speaking to her amendment, spoke strongly about cooperation, engagement and consultation. Everyone wants that and recognises that we need to move forward here. Liz Kimmins spoke to the fragility of our health system and referenced our local A&E department at Daisy Hill Hospital, about which we feel strongly, the struggles to attract GPs, and workforce planning leading to crises across service delivery. Mark Durkan rightly said that we need to invest to save and agreed on the need to fund the transformation. Alan Chambers noted how waiting times are unacceptable and how people in Northern Ireland are just not getting the treatment that they deserve. Linda Dillon highlighted the challenges, in particular those of the social care system, which, she said, carried the weight of a broken system. She also highlighted the challenges in rural constituencies. My colleague Alan Robinson rightly said that our health service is at breaking point and that one of the most difficult tasks for GPs is to refer patients to a waiting list, because they know that they will not be seen for some time. That is a real and concerning statement. Alan also rightly highlighted how the Fiscal Council has said that the stabilisation package offered by our UK Government will largely be used up by the recurrent public-sector pay packages. That is why, last December, when others claimed that we should not look a gift horse in the mouth, the DUP insisted that the package did not go far enough. Órlaithí Flynn talked about tackling health inequalities. In particular, she spoke strongly on issues that affect women and the need to invest to prevent rather than just treat illnesses. Timothy Gaston spoke about the need for a long-term funding package like that for Wales. I thank our Minister of Health for being here throughout the debate. I welcome his invitation to Professor Bengoa to come here on 9 October, but I am somewhat disappointed, in that I feel that I heard more of the same from him today. He said that the health budget was inadequate and then listed the details of existing waiting lists: we know that, and we have heard it before. We need to see more being done. We want to offer the Health Minister support through the motion and encourage him to take more action. We welcome the additional £76 million, but we acknowledge that we need to see more. We also call on the Health Minister to publish a transformation plan with degrees of aspiration for how the allocated funds will support the delivery of transformation. He needs to be able to report the outcomes. We need to see transformation, because we all want to see lives saved. We need to stop treading water and managing the decline. I want us to join together and make the case for fair funding today, but I would also like to see the Minister of Health set out a clear and ambitious plan for investing that money in the right place at the right time with the right results. He has the support of us all. We just want to see the detail and a plan for moving forward. We ask, through the motion, that we unite to see delivery on that. Lives depend on it.
746 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.51 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.26 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.21 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:11 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.